PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILAGES

Parliamentary Privileges (Art 105, 194)

A. Enjoyed individually
1. Freedom of speech - 105(1) – state of Kerala v Ajith
2. Freedom from arrest – 105(2)- PV Narasimha Rao v State
3. Freedom from appearing as a witness
B. Enjoyed collectively
1. Right to prohibit the publication - MSM Sharma v Sri Krishna Sinha AIR 1959
2. Right to institute inquiries
3. Right to exclude strangers
4. Right to punish members and outsiders
5. Right to expel members
6. Right to regulate internal proceedings
Art 105(3) Parliament’s power to make law
Privileges and Court – In Re Art 143, 1965.

The constitutional provisions regarding privileges of the state legislature and Parliament are identical.
Art 105 deals with Privileges of Parliament and
art 194 deals with the state legislature.
To enable Parliament to discharge its functions properly the constitution confers on each member of the House
certain rights and immunities
Parliamentary privileges can be broadly divided into two categories-
1. Enjoyed by the Members of Parliament collectively
2. Enjoyed by the Members of Parliament individually

The privileges individually enjoyed by the members are

A. Freedom of speech in Parliament- Article 105
Art 105(1) There shall be freedom of speech in Parliament. A member of Parliament is free to express
on any topic without any fear.
• The freedom of speech and expression guaranteed to a citizen under Article 19(2) is different from the
freedom of speech and expression provided to a member of the Parliament. Under article 19 it does
not protect an individual absolutely for what he says.
Conditions
1. Subject to the provisions of the constitution
Art 107 procedure of introducing a bill and passing of a bill.
Art 118 provides each house of Parliament may make rules for regulating its procedure and the conduct
of its business.
Art 121: prohibits any discussion in Parliament with respect to the conduct of a Judge of the SC and High
Court except when there is motion for his removal.
Art 203 facilitates the annual budgeting process in state legislatures across India.

2. Subject to the rules and standing orders regulating the procedure of Parliament.
Under rules 349 to 356 of the Lok Sabha use of unparliamentary language or unparliamentary conduct
of a member is prohibited.
 State of Kerala v K Ajith AIR 2021
Facts: MLAs of opposition party disrupted presentation of budget in Kerala Legislative assembly, by
climbing over the speaker’s dais and damaged furniture and articles; computer, mike… so a criminal case
was registered.
In CJM court held immunity can be claimed by MLAs only in exercise of free speech and voting. The
alleged offences committed by respondents did not have any nexus with their speech or vote.
High court upheld the decision of the CJM
Judgement: Supreme Court held that act of vandalism cannot be said to be manifestations of the
freedom of speech and be termed as proceedings of the Assembly. Constitution grants the members
freedom of speech that is necessary for their active participation in meaningful deliberation without any
fear of prosecution.

B. Freedom from arrest

• Article 105(2)No member of Parliament shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect
of anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament.
• No member will be liable in respect of the publication of what he said or voted
• No action civil or criminal will lie against a member for defamation in respect what is said in
Parliament.
• Immunity is from anything said in the Parliament. Once it is proved that Parliament was in sitting
and its business was being transacted, anything said during the course of that business is immune
from proceedings in the court. What they say is only subject to the discipline of the rules of
Parliament.
• The members enjoy freedom from arrest in any civil case 40 days before and after the adjournment
of the house and also when the house is in session.
• No member can be arrested from the limits of the Parliament without the permission of the house
to which he/she belongs so that there is no hindrance in performing their duties.
• If the detention of any members of the Parliament is made, the chairman or the speaker should be
informed by the concerned authority, the reason for the arrest. But, a member can be arrested
outside the limits of the house on criminal charges against him.

PV Narasimbha Rao v State AIR 1998

Facts: Rao government at the center didn’t enjoy majority in Lok Sabha in 1993. So vote of no confidence
was moved against the government by the opposition parties. To avert defeat on the floor of the House,
certain members of the ruling party gave large sums of money to a few members of the Jharkhand Mukti
morcha to vote against the motion so no confidence motion was defeated.
Judement: Five bench judge held that immunity extends to the act of giving vote in Parliament. Therefore
if the act of voting was influenced by the bribe, the MPs are immune from prosecution for that act of
voting.
Seven bench judge overruled Privileges are aimed at protecting the freedom of speech and
independence of the legislators in their functioning in the House and cannot extend to bribery, as it is
not essential to the casting of the vote or in deciding how to cast it

C. Freedom from appearing as a witness

• The members of the Parliament enjoy special privileges and are exempted from attending court as a
witness. They are given complete liberty to attend the house and perform their duties without any
interference from the court.
 Privileges enjoyed by the members collectively as part of Parliament
1. Right to prohibit the publication of proceedings
Parliament has the power to prohibit the publication of the proceedings of the Parliament.

However it is important and it is essential that the proceedings should be communicated to the public to
make them aware about what is going on in the Parliament.

Surendra v Nabakrishna AIR 1958

Facts: An editor of a newspaper held guilty of committing contempt of House for publishing a statement of
the house.
Judgement: It was held that there were many advantages to the public which has right to know what passes
in the Parliament.

So Parliamentary Proceedings (Protection of Publication)Act 1959 was passed. It provided that no person
shall be liable to any proceeding civil or criminal in any court in respect of the publication of substantially
true report of the proceedings of either House of Parliament.

Article 361 A provides no person shall be liable to any proceeding civil or criminal court in respect of the
publication of substantially true report of the proceedings of the house unless the publication is proved to
have been made with malice.

Limitations
a. Cannot publish any report of the proceedings of a secret sitting of either House of Parliament or
Legislative assembly.
b. Cannot publish the part of proceedings which is expressly ordered to be expunged by the speaker

MSM Sharma v Sri Krishna Sinha AIR 1959

Facts: Editor published those parts of the speech of a member which the speaker had ordered to be
expunged. Petitioner had contended that Parliament has no privilege to prohibit either publication what
is seen in the public
Judgement: SC held that parliament has the privilege to prohibit the publication of an inaccurate version
of such debates or proceedings.

2. Right to institute inquiries

House has power to institute inquiries and order attendance of person. And if there is disobedience of the
order, the House has the power to take the person into custody. House alone is the proper judge when
these powers are to be exercised.

3. Right to exclude strangers

The members of the house have the power and right to exclude strangers who are not members of the
house from the proceedings. This right is very essential for securing free and fair discussion in the house.

4. The right to punish members and outsiders for breach of its privileges
The Indian Parliament has the power to punish any person whether strangers or any member of the house
for any breach or contempt of the house. When any breach is committed by the member of the house,
he/she is expelled from the house.
5. Right to regulate internal proceedings
The house has the exclusive right to regulate its internal proceedings and adjudicate matters arising within
the House.
Bradlaugh v Gosset 1824
Plaintiff was prevented from entering the House by the Order of the House. Plaintiff asked the court to
declare the order as invalid.
Court held that House has exclusive right in regulating internal matters so not subject to the control of
courts.

6. Right to expel members

A member may be suspended or expelled from the House or may be sentenced to jail.
In 1977 the Lok Sabha expelled the former prime minister Mrs Indira Gandhi fom its membership and
sentencing her to jail till the house was prorogued for committing a contempt of Parliament while she was
Prime Minister.
Raja Ram Pal v Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha 2007 SCC
Facts: 11 members were expelled on allegations of having accepted bribe for asking questions in
Parliament. This was challenged that the Parliament had no privilege to expel.
Judgement: Court held that Parliament has the power to expel its member.

7. Parliament has power to expand its privileges

105(3)in other respects parliament can determine its powers, privileges and immunities may from time to
time be defined by law

Privileges and court

In Re Under Article 143 AIR 1965 SC 745
Facts: Keshav Singh who was not a member of the UP Assembly wash held guilty of contempt of the House
and was sentenced to imprisonment for 7 days. On behalf of Keshav Singh, Adv Solomon moved habeas
corpus petition alleging that his detention was illegal because he was not given opportunity to defend
himself.
Petition was heard by two judges of Allahabad High Court. It granted an interim bail and he was released.
The assembly then passed a resolution that the two judges, Keshav Singh and Advocate Solomon have
committed contempt of the House and directed all of them to be arrested. President referred this case to
supreme court under article 143
Judgement: SC held that two judges were not guilty of committing contempt of the House by issuing
interim bail order. Under art 226 the high court has the jurisdiction to order the release of person from
illegal detention. Legislature never discharged with judicial functions.

Eenadu privilege issue

Chief editor of Telugu newspaper Eenadu was found guilty of contempt of AP legislative council for
publishing an item. And the House passed an order to arrest him. But the High court stayed the order.
However the House pressed on arresting the accused and during the discussion members expressed the
view that House was supreme and sovereign in the matter of privileges and court should had no place in
the matter and it should not surrender to the supreme court so editor should be arrested. At the stage
chief minister intervened and requested the House to postpone the deliberation.
 ANTI DEFECTION LAW
Anti-defection law
Meaning of the term Defection
Objectives
52nd amendment
Tenth schedule
a. Para1: definition
b. Para 2: grounds of disqualification
c. Para 3: omitted
d. Para 4: Exception in case of merger of parties
e. Para 5: Exemption of Speaker or Chairman from disqualification
f. Para 6: Power of Speaker or Chairman to decide on disqualification
g. Para 7: judicial review
h. Para 8: Power of Speaker or Chairman to make rules

Meaning of the term Defection

Defection is “desertion by one member of the party of his loyalty towards his political party” or basically it
means “When an elected representative joins another party for benefits”. This practice of elected members
switching the political sides to get office is also known as Horse- Trading.

Objectives
• Defection causes government instability because a government may be toppled over due to the
defection of some of its supporters to the opposition party converting it from a minority into a
majority party
• Defection is undemocratic as it negates the electoral verdict: a party which didn’t get the mandate
from the people may still form the government. And the party which got the mandate from the
people may fail to form the government.

The 52nd Constitutional Amendment

• This amendment inserted Tenth Schedule in the constitution
• It amended Article 101, 102, 190 and 191 of the Constitution.
Article 102(2) a person shall be disqualified if he is so disqualified under the tenth schedule.

Tenth schedule
There are seven paras in the tenth schedule and they provide for disqualification on ground of defection.

Para 1 deals with the Definitions of House, Legislative party and original party and paragraph
House: either house of parliament or legislative assembly of state
Legislature party : the party which has members in the House
Original party: the party to which defector belongs to.

Para 2- Tenth Schedule lays the grounds for disqualification of the member’s
a. Member belonging to a political party
If a member of a house belonging to a political party shall be disqualified
• Para 2(1)(a) Has voluntarily given up his membership of such political party, or
• Para 2(1) (b) Votes, or abstain from voting in such House, contrary to the direction of his political party.
 However, if the member has taken prior permission, or is condoned by the party within 15 days from
such voting or abstention, the member shall not be disqualified.

b. Independent candidate
Para 2(2) If an independent candidate joins a political party after the election.

c. Nominated member of a house

If a nominated member of a house joins any political party after the expiry of six months from the date
when he becomes a member of the legislature.

Balachandra L Jarkhiholi v BS Yddyurappa

Facts: 13MLAs of the BJP wrote letters to the Governor of Karnataka expressing their disillusionment with the
functioning of the BJP government headed by Mr Yeddyurappa and withdrew the support to the government.
Mr Yediyarappa filed a petition before the Speaker. And the Speaker disqualified 13 MLAs.
Judgement: SC quashed the order of the Speaker held that it was mainly withdrawal of the support to the CM
and not the interests of the party as a whole.

Para 4- exception in case of merger of political Parties

a. A member of the house shall not be disqualified where his original political party merges with another
political party.
b. When party members get divided and form a new political party.
However, the merger of the political party has to be by not less than two third of the members of the Party
have agreed for the merger.

Para 5 exemption of Speaker/Chairman from disqualification

Speaker or deputy speaker or chairman or deputy chairman of the House shall not be disqualified
▪ If he after his election to be the speaker voluntarily gives up the membership of the political party to
which he belonged as he continues to hold that office, and doesn’t become member another party.
▪ If he rejoins the political party to which he belonged to after he ceases to hold such office

Para 6 Power of the Speaker/ Chairman to decide on disqualification

The Speaker of the House or the Chairman has been given wide and absolute powers to decide the case related
to disqualification of the members on the grounds of defection.

Para 7: Judicial Review-

This Para states that courts have no jurisdiction in any matter connected with disqualification of a member of
a House. The decision of the Speaker/ Chairman cannot challenged in courts.
However this Para was declared unconstitutional in the Kihoto Hollowhon v Zachilhu

Kihoto Hollohon v. Zachilhu 1992

The constitution validity of amendment was in question
Contentions were raised
1. It violated the fundamental principles of the Parliamentary democracy because the legislators had no
right to dissent and freedom of conscience.
2. Para 7 affected the operation of Art 136, 226 ad 227. The amendment erodes or destroys the
jurisdiction of the high court and Supreme Court so violative of the basic structure. The finality to the
decision of the speaker and bars any scrutiny by the court.
3. The speaker and chairman do not satisfy the requirement of an independent adjudicatory mechanism.
Because they hold an office on the support of the majority party.
Judgement: The constitution bench held
a. Rejected the contention that the provisions violated the right to dissent but held that provisions
strengthened democracy and curbed unethical political defections.
b. Bench unanimously held that para 7 which prohibits judicial review as invalid and unconstitutional
c. It held that the Speaker’s functions while applying anti-defection law is like that of a Tribunal and
therefore is open to judicial review.
.
Criticism
1. Time frame for a decision by the Speaker
Since there is no time frame for the decision by the Speaker or Chairman many disqualifications
petitions were kept pending for years on end without any order.

2. The Speaker’s Neutrality

A very serious question to think about is whether the power to disqualify a member should be vested
on Speaker or should be vested in some independent body outside the House. Since Speaker is a
political creature so may not be able to deal with the situation in an objective manner and is not
impartial. Speaker depends for his tenure on the majority in the Legislature so he doesn’t satisfy the
independent adjudicatory authority. In many countries the decision making on the issue of defection is
to either election commissioner or to the courts.

Union judiciary – The Supreme Court

In order to maintain the supremacy of the constitution there must be an independent and impartial
authority to decide disputes between the centre and the states. It is the final interpreter and guardian of the
constitution.
• It is guardian of the constitution
• It is the guarantor of the fundamental rights
• It has a sole authority of resolving disputes concerning dispute relating to elections of President or
vice President.
• It is the highest court of appeal.

Composition of Supreme Court

Art 124(1) states that there shall be SUPREME COURT of India.
 It consists of a Chief Justice and such other number of judges as Parliament by law prescribes.
Parliament can increase this number by law. Originally total number was seven +1. In 1977 it was
increased to 17+1. In 1986 it was increase to 25+1. In 2009 increased to 30+1. In 2019 it was increased
to 33 +1.
Subash sharma v Union of India 1991
It has held that the number of judges should be proportionate to the amount of work. Otherwise the
judiciary cannot perform its constitutional obligation.

Qualification – Art 124(3)

For a person to become a judge of Supreme Court he must be a citizen of India, and
 1. must have 5 years of experience as a judge in the High Court; It is not necessary here that this five year
of experience must be in a ‘single’ High Court. It can be possible that a person has 2 years’ experience
in some High Court and 3 years of experience in some other High Court; or
2. must have 10 years of experience as an advocate in High Court; or
3. is in the opinion of the president, a distinguished jurist.
4. Aged should not be more than 65 years. Minimum age is not mentioned

However, so far, not a single person has been appointed as a judge of the Supreme Court through the third
condition. Most of the judges that have been appointed to the Supreme Court are on the basis of their 5 years’
experience as judges in the High Court.
Aged should not be more than 65 years. Minimum age is not mentioned

Appointment of the CJI

• In appointing the Chief Justice of India, President was not bound to consult anyone as the word ‘may’
used made it clear that it was not mandatory for the President to consult anyone.
• Till 1973 the practice was to appoint seniormost Judge of the Supreme Court as the CJI. But in 1973
April 25 CJI was younger than three other supreme court judges. When it was challenged government
justified its action on the grounds of absolute discretion of the President and according to
recommendation of the commission.
• Law commission 1956: recommended that in appointing the CJI the experience of a person as a Judge,
his administration competence and merit should be judged and seniority should not only be the main
consideration
• However in the second judge case it was held that that the appointment of CJI should be made on the
basis of seniority.

Appointment of judges of Supreme Court

Art 124(2) provides that every judge of the Supreme Court shall be appointed by the President. However
article also provides that in the case of appointment of a judge, the Chief Justice of India shall be consulted.
This means that under Article 124 (2), in appointing other judges of the Supreme Court, the President was
bound to consult the Chief Justice of India as it may be clear by the words ‘shall be consulted’.

First Judges case : S.P. Gupta v. Union of India AIR 1982

Facts: In March 1981, Law minister sent a circular to the Governor of Punjab and to the chief minister of the
States requesting them to obtain consent to transfer judges to another high courts in the country. So this
circular was seen as direct threat to the independence of the judiciary. So many writs were filed in different
high courts. These writs were transferred to the Supreme court and placed before seven bench judge.

Judgement: The Supreme Court held that that word ‘consultation’ meant ‘mere consultation of views’ and it
does not mean ‘concurrence of views’ and thus the President is not bound to act in accordance with such
consultation and has a right to take a contrary view.

Effect: This decision of the Supreme Court laid down the ‘executive supremacy’ in matters of appointment of
Supreme Court judges.
The second judge case : Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association v. UOI 1993
Facts: In 1990 a batch of writ petitions were filed before the Supreme Court seeking for a mandamus to the
central government to fill up the vacancies in the high courts and supreme court. This was heard by the three
bench judge. This bench stated that judgement of the first judge case is seriously flawed. The word consultation
has been wrongly interpreted and thus suggested for the reconsideration by a larger bench.

Judgement: Nine bench judge, 7:2 majority overruled its earlier judgement.
The Supreme Court held that that word ‘consultation’ meant ‘ not mere consultation of views’ and but it is
‘concurrence of views’ and thus the President is bound to act in accordance with such consultation.

Effect:
Birth of Collegium: The opinion of the CJI is formed in consultation with two senior most judges of the supreme
court. Thus the opinion of the CJI is not his individual opinion.
judicial Supremacy: This decision thus laid down the judicial Supremacy in the matter of appointment of judges
of the Supreme Court.

Third judges case : re Special Reference 1 of 1998

Facts: On 23 July 1998 the President KR Narayan made a reference to review the Supreme Court on the
principles laid in the second judge case following a controversy over the recommendation by then Chief Justice
of India M.M. Punchhi.
Judgement: The SC held confirmed the ‘collegium system’ in appointment of the supreme court Judges.

Effects:
Expansion of Collegium: The Chief Justice of India should consult a collegium of four senior-most judges of the
Supreme Court and made it clear that if two judges give an adverse opinion the Chief Justice should not send
the recommendation to the government.
Limitation to collegium system:
• The opinion of the collegium must be in writing and the Chief Justice of India should send the
recommendation to the President along with his own recommendations.
• The Court also held that the President can send back the recommendation of ‘collegium system’ but if
again the same name is proposed by ‘collegium’, the President is bound to accept it.

National Judicial Appointment Commission

In 2014, after the Constitution 99th Amendment Act which amended Articles 124(2),127 and 128 and also
inserted article 129 A,124 B and 124 C changes were done in the procedure of appointment of judges of
Supreme Court.
This amendment abrogated collegium system and replaced Nation judicial appointment commission
Composition of NJAC - Article 124 (A),
1. Chief Justice of India;
2. two other senior judges of the Supreme Court;
3. Union law minister
4. 2 eminent people to be nominated by the committee consisting of the Prime minister and the leader
of opposition and CJI

Functions of NJAC- Art 124B

1. To recommend the person for the CJI, judges of SC, CJ of High Courts and other judges of High Courts.
2. To recommend transfer of CJ and other judges of High courts.

The procedure -Art 124C

Parliament may be law regulate the procedure for the appointment and empower the commission to lay down
regulations and the procedure and the manner of selection of persons.

The Fourth Judges case: Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association v. Union of India, 2016
Issue: constitutionality of the 99th Amendment Act 2014
Judgement: NJAC act 2014 was annulled on the ground that it violated the principle of independency of the
Judiciary which is part of the basic structure. The Court held that the ‘collegium system’ as it existed before
NJAC, would again become operative.

Removal of Supreme Court Judge - art 124(4)& (5)

A judge shall hold office until he attains the age of 65 years. Judge may resign his office by writing to the
President under art 124(2)(a)
Article 124(4) makes a provision for the removal of SC judge.
Grounds:
• Proved misbehaviour or
• Incapacity.

Procedure
Art 124(4) gives power to power to Parliament to make law to regulate the procedure for the removal of judges.
Thus Parliament enacted ‘Judges inquiry act 1968’ which regulats the procedure for removal of judges/
• A notice of motion for presenting such an address may be given by 100 members of Lok Sabha or 50
members of Rajya Sabha.
• The speaker or the chairman of the House may either admit the motion.
• If admitted then the speaker or chairman has to constitute a committee consisting of SC judges, CJ of
High Court and distinguish Jurist.
• The report of the committee is laid before the concerned House. If committee find the judge not guilty
then no further again is taken. If the committee finds judge guilty. Then it is motion is moved in both
the houses for the voting.

Case of justice V Ramaswami

In 1991, 108 member of Lok Sabha gave notice to the speaker of a motion to remove the Judge of SC V
Ramaswami. The Speaker admitted the motion and proceeded to constitute an Inquiry Committee but before
the committee could present its report Lok Sabha dissolved.

Sarojini Ramaswami v UOI

Facts: The wife of Ramaswami filed writ petition claiming for the copy of the report of the inquiry committee
before it is being submitted to the Speaker.
Judgement: Court held that if concerned judge found not guilty then there is no question of furnishing the
copy arises but if found guilty then concerned is entitled to receive the copy.
Secondly as regards Judicial review is permissible on limited grounds concerning legality. If the inquiry
committee report is not guilty then the matter ends there and Parliament cannot take any further action in the
matter. If the report finds guilty then only Parliament can take voting to remove him. So once the Parliament
passes the resolution after following due process and the President assents to the motion then the judge
stands removed and there is no judicial review.
 Jurisdiction of the Court

The Supreme Court is a multijurisdictional court and may be regarded the most powerful Apex Court in the
World.
The constitution confers very broad jurisdiction on the court. The jurisdiction of the Court can be put under
the following heads
1. Court of Record: The court has power to commit a person for contempt of court – Art 129
2. Original Jurisdiction: The court has original jurisdiction to decide inter-governmental disputes – Art 131
3. Appellate Jurisdiction: The court has appellate jurisdiction. It is the highest court of appeal in the
country in all matters; civil or criminal – Art 132 to 134
4. Special Leave Petition: The Court has a very extensive under article 136 from any court or tribunal in
the country in matters not falling under heading 4
5. Writ Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court has power to enforce fundamental right – Art 32
6. Advisory Jurisdiction: The court has advisory jurisdiction – Art 143
7. Review Jurisdiction: The court has power to review its own decisions – Art – 137
8. The court has power to make any order necessary for doing complete justice in any case- Art 142

Court of record
Court of record
1. Meaning of the court of record
2. Types of contempt of court
3. Landmark cases on contempt of court
a. Mohm Aslam v UOI 1994
b. Re Vinay Chandra Mishra
c. Supreme Court Bar association v UOI 1998
d. Re CS Karnan 2017
e. State Bank of India v Kingfisher Airlines Ltd 2017
4. Limitation – sec 20 contempt of court act 1971

Meaning of court of record

Article 129 makes the SC a court of record
Court of records has two meanings
1. A court of record is a court whose records are admitted to be of evidentiary value and they are not to
be questioned when they are produced before any court.
2. Court shall have the power to punish for contempt of court.

Types of Contempt of Court:

Two types of contempt of Supreme Court
1. Civil contempt: it is a wilful disobedience to any judgement, decree, direction, order or wilful
disobedience to any undertaking given to court
2. Criminal contempt: publication which
a. Scandalises or tends scandalize or lowers or tends to lower the authority of court
b. Prejudices or interferes or tends to interfere with the due course of any judicial
proceedings
c. Interfere or tends to interfere with or obstructs or tends to obstruct the administration
of justice in any other manner.
Mohm Aslam v UOI 1994
Facts: CM had given undertaking in the court that he would not allow any permanent construction on the land.
But this undertaking was violated.
CM took the defence that construction was done by the congregation of Sadhus and any attempt to prevent
the work would have created a violent situation.
Judgement: Supreme Court held that he didn’t prevent the construction work by Sadhus. Sho state of UP was
guilty of contempt and was fined.

Re Vinay Chandra Mishra

Facts: President of the Bar Council of India was found guilty of contempt of court for misbehaving with justice
Kishore of Allahabad High Court. High court sentenced him to 6 months simple imprisonment and his license
for practicing as an advocate was suspended for a period of 3 years.
Judgement: Supreme Court the three bench Judge held that court has power suo motu to take cognizance of
contempt and it has superintending power over lower courts and tribunals under art 129. This power cannot
be curtailed by any statute.

Supreme Court Bar association v UOI 1998

Five bench judge overruled the judgement of Re Vinay Chandra Mishra.
Power to punish under art 129 is wide but also limited. The court cannot interfere itself with disciplinary
jurisdiction of the BCI and State Bar Council to punish an advocate for contempt of the court.
This power is vested in the Disciplinary committee of the Bar Council under the Advocate Act. The court cannot
take the place of statutory body. But if the statutory body fails to take action then court has power Suo motu
to take cognizance

Re CS Karnan 2017: where a sitting judge was held guilty contempt of court and was sentence to imprisonment
to six months.

State Bank of India v Kingfisher Airlines Ltd 2017

SC held that SC can take action for contempt of itself as well as contempt of subordinate courts including high
courts.

Limitation
Section 20 of the contempt of Courts Act 1971
No court shall initiate any proceedings of contempt, either on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of
a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed.
Pallav Sheth v Custodian 2001
Pallav was sentenced for simple imprisonment of one yar for contempt of court. It was applealed that the court
initiated proceedings for contempt after the expiry of one year from the date on which the contempt was
alleged to have been committed.
It was held that proceedings were barred in view of section 20
 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
Article 131 original jurisdiction
Two types original jurisdiction
1. Ordinary original jurisdiction
a. Enforcement of Fundamental Rights(article 32)
2. Extra- Ordinary or exclusive Jurisdiction
a. Election of the President and Vice President
b. Inter-governmental Disputes- art 131
3. Who can be the parties to the dispute?
4. When can Article 131 be invoked?
State of Karnataka Vs. Union of India (1978)
State of West Bengal v UOI 1963
5. Exclusion of Jurisdiction

Article 131 original jurisdiction

A court is considered to have original jurisdiction when it has authority to hear and determine a case at the
first instance.

Two types original jurisdiction

6. Ordinary original jurisdiction
7. Extra- Ordinary or exclusive Jurisdiction

Ordinary original jurisdiction

Enforcement of Fundamental Rights
SC has been constituted as the guarding of fundamental Rights. Art 32 empowers the court to issue writs for
enforcement of Fundamental rights.

Extra- Ordinary or exclusive Jurisdiction

1. Election of the President and Vice President
• Disputes concerning election of President or vice President are decided exclusively by the Supreme Court
under section 14 of the Presidential or vice Presidential Election Act 1952.
• Only candidate to the President or vice President can file the petition.

2. Inter-governmental Disputes- art 131

Under Art 131 Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction in any dispute between
a. The centre and a state
b. The centre and state on one side and a state on the other side
c. Two or more states

Who can be the parties to the dispute?

a. Article 131 talks about State disputes, but the word ‘State’ does not have the same meaning like that in
Article 12 of the Indian Constitution. State government and center government are parties.
b. Private parties are not be a part of the cases which fall under Article 131 which is resolved by the
Supreme Court.

When can Article 131 be invoked?

The question must deal with the legal rights of a State Government or the Central Government and any kind
of non-legal questions is not maintainable.
 State of Karnataka Vs. Union of India (1978)
Facts of the case: The Central Government had issued a notification under Section 3 of the Commissions of
Inquiry Act, 1952, to inquire into the conduct of certain Ministers of the State Government of Karnataka
(including the Chief Minister). The chief minister and other ministers filed a suit under art 131 and challenged
the legality of this notification.
Contentions of the ministers of state government:
a. mainly raising a constitutional issue connected with federalism i.e Centre has no authority to constitute a
commission regard to matters falling exclusively within the sphere of state legislative and state executive
power.
b. State Cabinet was collectively responsible to the State Legislative Assembly.

Contention of the centre

a. Inquiry is against the Chief Minister and certain ministers and not against the state government so the
suit under art 131 was not maintainable.
Judgement: Supreme Court held that
It is true that there is a distinction between the state and state government. But there is a close relationship
between the State and State Government. Any action which affects the state government or the ministers in
their capacity as ministers would raise a matter in which the state would be concerned. The claims of the state
government are claims of the state. The state acts through its ministers. The acts of the ministers are acts of
the state. So it was held it comes under the article 131.

State of West Bengal v UOI 1963

WB filed a suit under art 131 questioning the legislative power of the Union on acquiring Land and rights over
the Land.
Constitutional Bench said under the article 131 Supreme court has original jurisdiction to check the
constitutionality of the enactment.

Exclusion of Jurisdiction
1. Proviso of Art 131 : shall not extend to the dispute arising out of any treaty, agreement, covenant etc
which have been entered before the commencement of constitution and which continues in operation.
These documents has evidently been left with the exclusive discretion of the executive
2. Parliament by law exclude the jurisdiction of Supreme Court in disputes between States with respect
to the use, distribution or control of the waters in any inter state river.- Art 262(2)
3. Matters referred to the Finance Commission (ART 280)

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SC is the highest court of appeal in the country. The writ and decrees of the court run throughout the country.
The Appellate jurisdiction of the SC can be divided into four main categories
1. Constitutional matters- art 132
2. Civil matters- art 133
3. Criminal matters – art 134
4. Special leave of appeal- art 136

CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS – ART 132

The final authority of interpreting constitution must rest with Supreme court.
 Certificate of appeal by the single to supreme court
In ordinary circumstances an appeal from a single judge should first be taken to a division bench of High
Court and only then an appeal can be brought before the Supreme Court. But in some circumstances single
bench can grant of necessary certification to appeal to Supreme court directly.

44th amendment has amended 132, 133 and 134 and inserted 134 A.
Under Article 134 A single bench of High Court can grant the certificate to appeal to Supreme Court in
constitutional matter (art 132) in civil matters (art 133) and in criminal matter (art 134)

The object of this amendment is to avoid delay in cases going to Supreme Court.

When High Court can grant the certificate of appeal

a. When it deems fit to do on its own motion
b. When on the application of aggrieved party

Conditions for the grant of certificate of appeal to Supreme Court

i. When there is a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of constitution the high court can
grant a certificate of appeal.
ii. High Court should be of the strong opinion that the particular question of law is of grave importance
and hence should be decided by the Supreme Court only.
iii. When High Court feels the lack of competency of the High Court to consider the issues involved in the
particular case
iv. When there are two or more interpretations placed on a constitutional provision. Different opinions
by different High Courts on constitutional questions create confusion among the lawyers and citizens.

Sydna Taher v State of Bombay

When appeal is not competent under art 132 the Supreme Court will not hear it even if the High Court has
granted the necessary certificate.

Election commission v Venkata Rao AIR 1953

Question: whether an appeal would lie to supreme Court from a decision to single Judge.
SC held in affirmative. But only in exceptional cases.

The case ought to involve a question of law as to interpretation of the constitution. It means that decision on
the question of constitutional law should be necessary for the proper decision of the case.
The question of interpretation can arise only if two or more possible constructions are sought to be placed on a
constitutional provision – one party suggesting one construction and the other a different one.

CIVIL MATTERS ART 133

The Supreme Court has got power to entertain appeals from the judgment, decree or final order of a High
Court in civil proceedings.
Conditions
1. the decision appealed must be a judgement, decree or final order of a high court in the territory of
India
2. In the opinion of High Court that the said question needs to be decided by the Supreme Court
3. Aggrieved party has a ground that Substantial question of law has been wrongly decided.
Prior to the 30th amendment act 1972 under art 133 an appeal could go to the Supreme Court in civil from any
judgement of the High Court if the high court certified that the amount or value of the subject matter of the
dispute is not less than 20,000/- . The 30th amendment has removed this condition of monetary value.
The pecuniary value of the subject matter of the suit is of no consideration at all. There may be cases where
the point in dispute cannot be measured in terms of money and yet the decisions may have far reaching results.

Biswabani Ltd v. Santhosh Kumar Datta 1980

Certificate granted by the High Court was found to be defective as it neither specified why the case fit for
appeal to the supreme court. It was observed that it is obligatory upon the High Court to set out the question
on private or public importance

IN CRIMINAL MATTERS
Appeal lies to the supreme court in criminal matters in two ways
i. Without a certificate of High Court
ii. With a certificate of the High Court

Without a certificate of High Court

A. appeal lies to the supreme court if the High Court reverses the decision of acquittal of the accused
person and sentences him to death
for example, If an accused was acquitted in the Session Court acquits but on appeal High Court had set
aside the session judgement and sentences him to death.
Here acquittal doesn’t mean that the trial ended of complete acquittal but means acquitted of murder
but has been convicted of lesser offence.

Tarachand Damu sutar v Maharastra 1962

The accused was charged under section 302 was convicted under 304 IPC. But the High Court reversed
the order and convicted the accused to murder under section 302 and sentenced him to death.
SC held that the accused was entitled to certificate to appeal. And rejected the contention acquittal
should be complete acquittal.

B. When High Court has withdrawn for trial before itself any case from any court subordinate to its
authority and has in such trial convicted the accused him death, then an appeal shall lie to Supreme
Court.

With a certificate -134(c)

The high court grants fitness certificate to appeal to the supreme court.

Baladin v uttar Pradesh AIR 1956

SC refused to accept the appeal held that High Court didn’t show what is the reason for granting the certificate
to appeal or what points of importance required to be settled. It was not enough to merely grant the certificate
to appeal, the High Court should mention the reason.

State of Assam v Abdul Noor AIR 1970

SC declined to accept the certificate as it didn’t indicate any reason as to why the High Court granted the
certificate.
It is to be noted Supreme Court is not constituted as general court of appeal. It would entertain appeals from
the High Court only when in exceptional cases where the demand of justice requires interference by the
Highest Court of the Land.

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION- ARTICLE 136

Appeal by special leave – Art 136
Art 136 grants power to Supreme Cout in its discretion, special leave to appeal from any judgement, decree,
determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the
territory of India

Exception art 136(2)

Any judgement or order passed by a tribunal functioning under a law relating to the armed forces.

Distinction between 136 and 132- 135

A. Under 132 to 135 appeal can be entertained only against the final order but under art 136 there is no
adjective final so court can grant special leave to appeal even to interlocutory order.
B. Under 132 to 135 appeals can be entertained only when it is against the order of High Court but under
art 136 any lower court or tribunal
C. Any case or any matter, constitutional, civil, criminal or otherwise

Power grant special leave to appeal to be exercised in exceptional cases

Pritam Singh v State 1950

The wide discretionary power of granting special leave to appeal should be allowed only in exceptional cases
only. As far as possible there should be uniform standard should be adopted

DC Mills v Commissioner of Income Tax WB

Court held that power under article 136 should be used sparingly and with caution and only in special
extraordinary situations.

Scope of art 136

The power of the supreme court is discretionary. It is completely the discretion of the supreme court whether
or not to grant the special leave. It cannot be claimed as a right by the aggrieved party. It is a residual power
to do complete justice. It is not plenary power
The exercise of the jurisdiction under art 136 consists two steps
1. Granting special leave to appeal : at the first step the court exercises its discretionary to grant or not to
grant.
2. Hearing the appeal

Withdrawal of appeal under art 136

An appeal admitted may not be allowed to be withdrawn unless adequate and valid reasons to the satisfaction
of court are furnished. And if the court is not satisfied with the reasons, it may refuse withdrawal of the appeal
and decide it on merit.
Power of Supreme Court’s to review its own judgments, orders- Article 137
Supreme Court can review its own decision

Three ground for review

1. Discovery of new and important matters or evidence
2. Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record
3. Any other sufficient reason

After the Supreme Court's 2018 verdict allowing women of all ages to enter the Sabarimala Temple, numerous
review petitions were filed challenging this decision. The petitioners argued that the verdict overlooked
essential religious practices and hurt religious sentiments. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the review
petitions.

Advisory jurisdiction – Art 143

President of India can seek the advice the Supreme Court on any matter of Public importance.

Two areas when President can seek advice

1. On matters of Public importance - art 143(1)
2. Matter under the proviso of article 131- art 143(2)

On matters of Public importance

Under article 143(1) President can seek the advice of the Supreme Court If it appears a question of law or fact
has arisen, or is likely to arise, which is of public importance that it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the
Supreme Court upon it, he may refer the question to the Supreme Court for consideration and the Court may,
after such hearing as it thinks fit, report to the President its opinion thereon.
On matter under the proviso of Article 131
Proviso of article refers to treaties, agreement which have been entered before the commencement of the
constitution and continues to be in operation.

Is it binding on Supreme Court to answer the reference given by the President

The use of word “may” in Art 143(1) indicates that the Supreme Court is not bound to answer a reference
made to it by President. Supreme court has the discretion either to answer the reference or respectfully decline
to send a report to the President.

But in article 143(2) the use of word “shall” indicates that in matters of proviso of art 131, the Supreme Court
is bound to report to the President.

Re Kerala education bill 1957

Judgement: The court expressed the view that advisory opinion of the Supreme Court under art 143(1) is not
binding on court. It is binding to entertain a reference and to report to the President under article 143(2)

In Re Special Courts Bill, 1978,

Judgement: Supreme Court overruled the above judgement and held that it is not binding on both matters.
Even in matters arising under clause (2), the court may be justified in returning the reference unanswered if it
finds for a valid reason that the question is incapable of being answered...
Is the President bound by the advisory opinion of the Supreme Court
No the President is not bound by the advice given the Supreme Court on both the matters. The word consult
shows beyond doubt that the President not bound to give effect to the opinion. So opinion of the Supreme
Court cannot be enforced.

Advice given by the Supreme Court under article 143 is only an opinion, it is neither a decree nor an order, it
cannot be enforced. Only decrees and orders can be enforced.

Re in the matter of Cauvery water disputes Tribunal in 1992

Facts: A tribunal was appointed by the Central government to decide the question of waters of the river
Cauvery. The tribunal gave an interim order directing Karnataka to release particular quantity of water to Tamil
Nadu. Karnataka government resented the decision of the Tribunal and promulgated an ordinance
empowering government not to honour the order of the Tribunal. Tamil Nadu government protested. President
made a reference to SC under art 143.
SC held the ordinance of the Karnataka is unconstitutional

Conclusion
Around fifteen references have been made to the Supreme Court of which the court refused to entertain only
one reference that in the matter Ram Janma Bhumi.

High Court
Art-214 There shall be a High court for every state

Composition
Art 216 – a high court consists of the Chief Justice and such other judges as the President may appoint from
time to time.
Supreme court advocates on record association v UOI
Held that CJI and CJ of High Court should undertake a periodical review of the judge strength of every high
court with the reference to the felt need of disposal of cases

Appointment of Judges of High Court- ART 217

High court Judges are appointed by the President after consulting the CJI, the Governor of the state concerned
and CJ of High court.
Qualification – art 217 (2)
• Citizen of India
• Ten years of as judicial office in the territory of India
• Ten years has been an advocate of a High Court.

Writ jurisdiction of the High Court

• Literally means produce the body or to have the body of
• By issuing this writ, the court orders the concerned person or authority who has detained another
person to produce the body of the detained person before the court and show a valid reason for the
person’s detention.
• Can be issued this writ against both private and public authorities.
Conditions to file habeas corpus
• Detention is unlawful: The detention becomes unlawful when conditions of article 21 and 22 are not
have been followed.
• Due process is not followed: Detention where due process of law is not followed.
• Detention is Malafide : If the power of detention vested in an authority was exercised mala fide and is
made in ulterior purposes

Writ cannot be issued

▪ When the detention is lawful
▪ When the competent court issued the detention
▪ When the detention is outside the jurisdiction of a particular High Court : when a person is detained in
Karnataka you cannot file writ in Maharashtra High Court.
▪ When the detention is for contempt of court or legislature by the person.
The petition can be filed by the general public, relative or friend on behalf of illegally detained person.

ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976)

Facts: During the Emergency period (1975-1977), several political leaders and activists were detained
without trial under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA). The petitioners challenged their
detention, seeking a writ of habeas corpus.
Issue: Whether the right to approach the courts for enforcement of fundamental rights under Article
21 was suspended during the Emergency.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that during the Emergency, the right to seek habeas corpus was
suspended, and the detainees had no right to approach the courts. This decision was highly criticized
and was later overruled by the 44th Amendment to the Constitution, which restored the right to life
and personal liberty even during an Emergency.

Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978)

Facts: Sunil Batra, a prisoner on death row, wrote a letter to the Supreme Court alleging inhuman
treatment and torture in Tihar Jail.
Issue: Whether the writ of habeas corpus could be used to address issues of prison conditions and the
treatment of inmates.
Judgment: The Supreme Court treated the letter as a habeas corpus petition and held that the writ
could be used to address violations of the rights of prisoners. The court laid down guidelines for the
humane treatment of prisoners, emphasizing the protection of their fundamental rights.

Priya Ramani v. State of Karnataka (2020)

Facts: Journalist Priya Ramani was detained for her articles and tweets critical of the government.
Issue: Whether her detention was a violation of her right to free speech and personal liberty.
Judgment: The Karnataka High Court ordered her release, reiterating that criticism of the government
is not grounds for detention and emphasizing the importance of protecting free speech and personal
liberty.

Nanda Kumar v Kerala 2018

The appellant was less than 21 years on the date of marriage and his wife the girl was living with him.
HC held she was not lawfully wedded wife and allowed the writ of habeas corpus and entrusted her
custody to the father.
SC set aside the HC order. That girl has free choice as to with whom she wanted to live because of both
of them were Hindus and the marriage between them was not null but voidable in nature. Court held
that even if they were not competent to enter into wedlock they had the right to live together.
 Sarita Sharma v Sushil Sharma 2000
Facts: court in America had granted the custody two children to husband. But wife brought the children
to India. So it was challenged in the High court through writ of habeas corpus
HC allowed the petition and ordered that children were in illegal custody of the mother and directed
the wife to restore the custody to the husband according to the decree passed by the American court.
Wife challenged it in SC
SC held allowed the petition saying that it was not proper of HC and set aside the order of HC.

Mandamus
• Means we command
• It is an order by a superior court commanding a person or public authority to do or forbear to do
something in the nature of public duty.
For instance licensing officer is under a duty to issue a licence to an applicant who fulfils all the
conditions.
• A petition for writ of mandamus can be filed by any person who seeks a legal duty to be performed by
a person or a body. Such a filing person must have real or special interest in the subject matter and
must have legal right to do so.
• It is issued when there is failure to perform a mandatory duty by the state.

Conditions needs to be fulfilled before filing a writ of mandamus

1. The duty in question must be of a public nature
2. The petitioner must show that he has a legal right to the performance of the duty
3. The petitioner must have made a specific demand to the authority and authority refused to perform
4. The duty must be specific or clearly defined
5. The duty must be mandatory by law and not discretionary or optional

When writ of mandamus cannot be issued

1. When public duty is discretionary and not mandatory
2. To perform the non-statutory function
3. Against the President of India or Governor of any State
4. Against any private individual or private organisation
5. Against legislature to enact a law or to stop the enacting a law
It can be filed only when the Public authority refuses to perform their public duty on being demanded by the
petitioner

S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981)

Facts: This case, also known as the Judges Transfer Case, involved the transfer of judges and the non-
confirmation of additional judges.
Issue: Whether the writ of mandamus can be issued to the President of India or the Chief Justice of India
regarding the transfer and appointment of judges.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that the writ of mandamus cannot be issued to the President of India or
the Chief Justice of India in the matter of appointment and transfer of judges as these are matters of high
constitutional function. However, the court also held that mandamus could be issued to other authorities if
there was a failure to perform a statutory duty
Rashid Ahmed v. Municipal Board, Kairana (1950)
Facts: Rashid Ahmed was refused a license by the Municipal Board, Kairana, without proper reasons.
Issue: Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to compel the Municipal Board to grant a license.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that a writ of mandamus could be issued to compel the Municipal Board
to perform its duty of granting a license if the refusal was without any justifiable reason and was arbitrary.

State of West Bengal v. Nuruddin (1998)

Facts: Nuruddin was dismissed from his job without following the proper procedure.
Issue: Whether the writ of mandamus can be issued to reinstate an employee who has been wrongfully
dismissed.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that the writ of mandamus can be issued to compel the reinstatement of
an employee if the dismissal was made in violation of the statutory provisions or without following the due
process of law

Prohibition
• Means to forbid
• It is issued primarily to prevent an inferior court or tribunal from exceeding its jurisdiction or acting
contrary to the rules of natural justice.
• It is issued by the superior court to junior courts to keep with the limits of their jurisdiction.

Certiorari
• Certiorari means “to certify.” Writ of Certiorari is a curative writ.
• Writ of certiorari can be applied in when a court passes an order outside its jurisdiction.
• when the court passes an order for a case which it had no power to do so, the aggrieved can apply for
the writ of certiorari.
• It is issued against the judicial or quasi-judicial authority, acting in a judicial manner.

Difference between Prohibition and certiorari

Prohibition Certiorari
When an inferior court takes up for hearing a matter If the court had heard the matter and given a
over which it has no jurisdiction, an aggrieved person decision without proper jurisdiction then the
can move for a writ of prohibition. aggrieved person can file writ of certiorari. It is for
When the case is pending and has not been finally quashing what had already been decided.
decided
The object of certiorari is cure
The object of Prohibition is preventive

.
Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO (1961)
Facts: The Income Tax Officer (ITO) initiated reassessment proceedings against Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd.
without sufficient reasons.
Issue: Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated by the ITO were beyond his jurisdiction.
Judgment: The Supreme Court issued a writ of prohibition, holding that the ITO had initiated reassessment
proceedings without jurisdiction. The court underscored that a writ of prohibition can be issued to prevent an
authority from continuing proceedings if they lack jurisdiction.
S. Govinda Menon v. Union of India (1967)
Facts: The petitioner challenged the proceedings of an inquiry committee, claiming it was acting without
jurisdiction.
Issue: Whether the inquiry committee had jurisdiction to conduct the proceedings.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that a writ of prohibition could be issued if the inquiry committee was
found to be acting without jurisdiction. The court noted that the writ is aimed at ensuring that authorities do
not overstep their legal boundaries.

Quo warranto
• Means what is your authority.
• By this writ a holder of an office is called upon to show to the court under what authority he holds the
office.
• An application for the writ of quo waranto challenging the legality of an appointment to an office of a
public nature.
• Any member of public can challenge the right of a person to hold public office.

Conditions
1. The office in question must be a public office created by the Constitution, a statute, or under statutory
authority.
2. The person against whom the writ is sought must be holding the office in a de facto capacity.
3. There must be a clear case that the appointment to the office was made contrary to law.
4. The writ can be filed by any person, not necessarily the aggrieved party, as it is a matter of public
interest.

University of Mysore v. Govinda Rao (1964)

Facts: The appointment of the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Mysore was challenged on the grounds that
it did not follow the statutory requirements.
Issue: Whether the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor was valid and legal.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that a writ of quo warranto could be issued if a person holding a public
office is found to be appointed contrary to statutory provisions. The court emphasized that the writ can be
used to ensure that public offices are occupied by legally eligible persons.

B.R. Kapur v. State of Tamil Nadu (2001)

Facts: The appointment of J. Jayalalithaa as the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu was challenged on the grounds
that she was disqualified from contesting elections due to her conviction in a criminal case.
Issue: Whether the appointment of J. Jayalithaa as Chief Minister was valid despite her disqualification.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that the appointment was invalid as she was disqualified from contesting
elections under the Representation of the People Act. The court issued a writ of quo warranto, declaring her
appointment illegal

Centre for PIL v. Union of India (2011)

Facts: The appointment of P.J. Thomas as the Central Vigilance Commissioner (CVC) was challenged on the
grounds of his involvement in a corruption case.
Issue: Whether the appointment of P.J. Thomas as CVC was valid.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that the appointment was illegal due to the pending corruption charges
against P.J. Thomas, which undermined the integrity required for the office of the CVC. The court issued a writ
of quo warranto, directing him to vacate the office.
 Speaker
• Loka Sabha elects two of its members as speaker and deputy speaker.
• When the office of speaker is vacant the deputy speaker performs the duties of speaker’s office – art
93
• If the office of deputy speaker is also vacant then President may appoint a member of the House for
the purpose. -Art 95(1)

Tenure of speaker
• The speaker and deputy speaker remain in office as long as they are members of the House. As soon as
they cease to be members of the house they have to vacate their offices.
• They can be removed from their offices by the resolution of the Assembly passed by a majority of all
the members of Assembly – Art 179(c)
• The Speaker should be given Fourteen days of notice to speaker

Position of the speaker

• He has to be above party politics, should be impartial and independent presiding officer.
• He has to ensure proper decorum in the assembly
• He presides over the meeting
• Once elected to this high office he has to be above party politics.
• The speaker is an impartial and independent presiding officer

Functions
Legislative Functions
1. Presiding Over Sessions: The Speaker presides over the sessions of the Lok Sabha, ensuring that
proceedings are conducted in an orderly manner.
2. Maintaining Order: The Speaker maintains order and decorum in the House, preventing disruptions
and unruly behaviour.
3. Conduct of Business: The Speaker ensures that the business of the House is conducted in accordance
with the rules and procedures.
4. Voting in the House: The Speaker does not vote in the first instance but has a casting vote in case of a
tie.

Administrative Functions
1. Committee Appointments: The Speaker appoints members to various parliamentary committees and
oversees their functioning.
2. Committee Reports: The Speaker receives reports from committees and ensures they are presented to
the House.
3. Allocation of Time: The Speaker allocates time for the discussion of different items on the agenda.
4. Admitting Petitions: The Speaker admits petitions and representations from members and the public.

Disciplinary Functions
1. Disciplinary Actions: The Speaker has the authority to discipline members for unruly behaviour,
including suspension or expulsion.
2. Quashing Disturbances: The Speaker can adjourn the House or suspend the proceedings in case of
grave disorder.

Financial Functions
1. Money Bills: The Speaker certifies whether a bill is a Money Bill or not, and their decision is final.
2. Budget Presentation: The Speaker oversees the presentation of the budget and related discussions.
Judicial Functions
1. Deciding Disqualification: Under the Tenth Schedule (Anti-Defection Law), the Speaker decides on the
disqualification of members on grounds of defection.

Miscellaneous Functions
1. Communication with the President: The Speaker communicates the decisions of the Lok Sabha to the
President of India.
2. Representation of the House: The Speaker represents the Lok Sabha in its relations with the President,
the Rajya Sabha (the upper house), and other authorities.
3. General Supervision: The Speaker supervises the functioning of the Lok Sabha Secretariat.
4. Independence and Impartiality: The Speaker is expected to be impartial and independent in their
conduct, ensuring fairness in the proceedings of the House.

Conclusion
The Speaker of the Lok Sabha is a central figure in the parliamentary system of India, wielding extensive powers
to ensure the effective functioning of the House. The Speaker's role is critical in maintaining parliamentary
discipline, facilitating legislative business, and upholding the principles of democracy and rule of law within
the parliamentary framework.